It was nationalism that cemented most of the European powers in the modern era, turning them from dynastic states into nation-states, and it was the spread of nationalist ideology that helped destroy the British, French, Ottoman, Dutch, Portuguese, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian/Soviet empires. Nationalism is the main reason the United Nations had fifty-one members immediately after its founding in 1945 and has nearly 200 members today. It is why the Zionists wanted a state for the Jewish people and why Palestinians want a state of their own today. It is what enabled the Vietnamese to defeat both the French and the American armies during the Cold War. It is also why Kurds and Chechens still aspire to statehood; why Scots have pressed for greater autonomy within the United Kingdom, and it is why we now have a Republic of South Sudan.

The vast majority of nationalisms are organized around single ethnicities. So it is not surprising that Walt points to evidence for the renationalization of European foreign policy. This bodes poorly for the EU project and the common currency. The financial strains of deeply indebted mostly southern European nations are prompting nationalists in northern European countries to increasingly assert their own national interests over those of countries reeling from sovereign debt crises. If Greece and Portugal find it necessary to leave the Euro then they will claw back more sovereignty in other policy areas. Brussels will lose power to the national governments. When you see Italy's sovereign debt interest rates spike that's the markets accidentally fanning the flames of nationalism against multi-ethnic elite-driven mpires such as the EU.

The birth of South Sudan is a momentous invitation not to despair over
the travails that the people of this new landlocked and impoverished
nation surely will experience, but to celebrate another step toward
closing what Pierre Englebert, a professor of African politics at
Claremont College, has called "Africa's secessionist deficit." And the
deficit in question refers to living standards and development
generally. Englebert found, in one of the most exciting recent academic projects
in academic African studies, that the unwillingness to cut African
nations down in size (in other words, to let new nations form) has
"contributed to its underdevelopment."

I'm not optimistic that more nation formation will usher in some sort of golden age of African development. Africa's incredibly low living standards have several (rather untractable) causes. Medieval England had higher living standards than Africa today and the many nations of sub-Saharan Africa remain in a Mathusian Trap. Even worse, if Gregory Clark is right about the role of disease in boosting living standards (by putting limits on population density) then Bill Gates' pursuit of cures for African diseases will lower living standards there even further. But putting borders between warring groups such as Hutu and Tutsi seems like a good idea.

Back in January 2011 Parag Khanna wrote a piece in Foreign PolicyBreaking Up Is Good to Do where he argued that the world could benefit from a surge to 300 for the number of nations. It is amazing to see these sorts of arguments in an era where many members of the elite enthusiastically argue for globalization and a borderless world. Also amazing: Denmark has reestablished border controls to keep out unwanted immigrants. The EU is not a done deal.

How about breaking the USA up into about 10 or more countries ? We could finally live with people who like us, instead of having to live with people who hate us.

I wonder if liberals would go for this. Imagine having their own liberal country. They could go "gays, gays, gays" all day long. They could pass any law or any tax they wanted. Only thing is, I wouldn't have to live there. I'd be in the good country. Some would say I could have this now by just moving to another state. Partially yes, but Fed-gov dumps 3rd world immigrants in every state. There is no safe place unless you have your own country with machine-gunners on the border.

But how much of liberal day-to-day life comes from dicking with people who are not liberal ? I'd say a lot. If they didn't have somebody to hurt, they wouldn't know what to do all day long. Therefore I need my own country where I can be safe from liberal aggression.

But how to get this ? There are still millions of white male cops and troopie-doops who will kill to keep the liberals in power. It seems to me that we have to wait for an economic collapse and then in the chaos of that, we can form a new smaller streamlined America. One where liberals can't tell anyone what to do anymore. A yeoman's republic.

The problem with a multitude of nations in North America between Mexico and the 48th parallel is the vast length of indefensible land borders. This paves the way for re-unification under an emperor by conquest, which is both worse and bloodier than our current situation.

"The problem with a multitude of nations in North America between Mexico and the 48th parallel is the vast length of indefensible land borders."

No more so than in Europe, surely. Mountain ranges and rivers are as plentiful in the US as anywhere else in the world. The Rocky Mountains are just as good a natural boundary as the Alps or the Pyrenees.

Of course if Europe had recently been colonized or was still in the process of being colonized (as is arguably the case in the US) it's borders would not be as they are today.

There are two major mountain ranges in the USA, making 3 natural geographic regions. These don't correspond very well to the ethnic/ideological divisions either. On top of that, any non-coastal area would wind up landlocked and at a severe economic disadvantage.

I think the USA is better off reducing divisions through policies designs to e.g. get the dissatisfied Spanish-speakers to return to their ancestral homes.

"There are two major mountain ranges in the USA, making 3 natural geographic regions. These don't correspond very well to the ethnic/ideological divisions either. On top of that, any non-coastal area would wind up landlocked and at a severe economic disadvantage."

You're living in the past, landlocked areas no longer need be at an ecnomic disadvantage. A lot of the goods people buy on the East Coast have been shipped across the Pacific and then across America. And if you look at Europe, it has fewer major mountain ranges than the US. As for ethnic/ideological divisions: when different ethnic/ideological countries exist, the different ethnic and idelogical groups will align themselves with them. At least that's what happened in Europe. Americans are not one people even after allowing for the existence of the Hispanic invaders.